Scorched Earth

[David]

chilidog

Registered to :Aug 22, 2001
Messages :100
From :Baton Rouge, LA USA
Posted 28-09-2001 at 16:31
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When Gen. Sherman made his march to the sea, his orders were to make it where "a crow flying over will have to pack his lunch." He burned a path to the sea that was 60 miles wide including the city of Atlanta, Ga. The idea was to break the will of the South to fight, thereby shortening the war.

Was this right to wage war on "innocent civilians?" How does this compare to dropping "the bomb" on Japan or how we treated civilians in Vietnam? Did Sherman's march shorten the war?

Come on guys, doesn't anybody else have any opinions?


chilidog



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Profile Email Qoute
Keith_Hixson

Registered to :Aug 23, 2001
Messages :445
From :Ellensburg, Washington
Posted 02-10-2001 at 03:16
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If it really does shorten war and save lives it may be justifiable. How many lives did the bomb save? That will be the debate for years to come. I do know that those who were in the Army in Europe were glad when the bombs were dropped because they knew it would shorten the war.

I'm sure Sherman's march must have hurt the South. It must have hastened the end of the war. At least Sherman didn't grossly kill tens of thousands innocent civilians. The hardships on the South must have been great. If you are a Northerner it probably was justified, If you are a Southerner it was terribly wrong.
If you are Japanese it was wrong, if you were a soldier in Europe getting ready to be shipped to the Pacific it was right.

So much of right or wrong depends your perspective and how it effects you.

My great grandfather was with Sherman on his march, I wonder what he would have said. He probably would have justified what he was doing.

Keith


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Profile Email Qoute
Tamaroa

Registered to :Aug 21, 2001
Messages :35
From :West Haverstraw, NY
Posted 07-10-2001 at 00:10
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When I lived in the south in the 60's and 70's, I got a lot of grief being a New Yorker. People connected New york with Sherman and they still remembered.

When you think of the Civil War, there are several cliches that come to mind, one that is very apropos is "Last of the old, first of the new." The CW was basically the first modern war. It was pretty mixed up because you had people who were still trying to fight as gentlemen vs. people who were willing to do anything to win. Fighting the war as a gentleman was an anachronism. Sherman scared the hell out of the south and the southern fighting man. The Rebel soldier was now worried about his home as well as the foe in front of him.

I don't see comparing Sherman's march with the A bomb. I think its a stretch. We used the A bomb to supposedly prevent the million casualties that were predicted if we were to try to take the home islands of Japan. You can't say that about Sherman's march. They were definitely not interested in saving lives. Grant used the AOP as canon fodder realizing eventually that the south would run out of men before he would, hence victory!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Profile www Qoute
Keith_Hixson

Registered to :Aug 23, 2001
Messages :445
From :Ellensburg, Washington
Posted 07-10-2001 at 02:26
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grant did use attrition but he was also fairly good General. He felt by bringing an end to the war he was saving lives. I would not agree with the remark Canon Fodder. Sherman's march was agains the land. But, the South also used a lot of unconventional terrorist type tactics in the Civil War. They didn't fight anymore like gentlemen than the North. War is hell!!

Keith


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Profile Email Qoute
Tamaroa

Registered to :Aug 21, 2001
Messages :35
From :West Haverstraw, NY
Posted 07-10-2001 at 10:38
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Heck somebody had to invent land mines, torpedos and Nathan Bedford Forrest. Also you do'nt think they were canon fodder? read my posting of the 6th NY Heavy artillery in the Wilderness. Grant took 60K casualties in the overland campaign to the Rebs 40K plus look at how he apprached Cold Harbor! That my friend is canon fodder.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Profile www Qoute
Keith_Hixson

Registered to :Aug 23, 2001
Messages :445
From :Ellensburg, Washington
Posted 07-10-2001 at 16:30
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lee and Picketts Charge at Gettysburg was cannon fodder!

Pickett never forgave the "old man."

Lee also allowed great losses in the Wilderness and Cold Harbor. He could have surrender much earlier and prevented much more blood shed. He was just as guilty as Grant. On a percentage basis the South Lost More.

Keith


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Profile Email Qoute
Tamaroa

Registered to :Aug 21, 2001
Messages :35
From :West Haverstraw, NY
Posted 10-10-2001 at 16:28
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lee was duty bound to fight until his CIC Davis told him to stop. By the time appomattox occurred, everyone realized that the Confederacy was doomed so I believe he took the right course when he surrendered.

But saying that he should have surrendered in the summer of 1864 is kind of skewed thinking. By that logic they never should have seceded in 1860/61 to avoid blood shed. Lee said from the outset that the North would win a protracted contest. Are you saying that principles & honor mean nothing and that he should never have fought to begin with? Put yourself in his shoes.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Profile www Qoute
Keith_Hixson

Registered to :Aug 23, 2001
Messages :445
From :Ellensburg, Washington
Posted 10-10-2001 at 18:05
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you are a Northerner you would say, to withdraw from the Union was dishonor itself. Honor is a term that is varible, depending on your point of view. I believe that when Lee realized that Grant wasn't going to let up and all hope was gone he should have surrendered and saved many lives. I believe he knew that after Wilderness but of course his sense of honor drove him to continue on until he had no choice. I believe that the South should have never left the Union and therefore when you talk about blood shed it all goes back to the decision withdraw and become your own country. And, Lee was just as guilty as Grant for keeping men in the line of fire much longer than necessary. But of course this is all hind site. But, I believe that Grant gets a bad rap for the Wilderness and Cold Harbor when Lee on a percentage lost more and was willing to continue sacrificing his men. Lee was not the Saint that the South has made him out to be. I have lots of admiration for both Lee and Grant as Generals. They both fought bravely and did a very difficult job. Both Lee and Grant were compassionate men but both understood that if you are going to win wars, people will die. Did Grant make mistakes you are absolutely right, but so did Lee and in your own words, both were willing to sacrifice men in order to win battles (lose) [cannon fodder]. Both are equal as guilty. Not just Grant. And if Picketts charge wasn't cannon fodder I don't understand the meaning of the phrase.

Keith


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Profile Email Qoute
Tamaroa

Registered to :Aug 21, 2001
Messages :35
From :West Haverstraw, NY
Posted 10-10-2001 at 19:50
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

This gem is what is responsible for the Civil War. southerners interpreted it to be the right to secede. Even when some southern states ratified the constitution, they did so with the proviso that they can withdraw from the Union should the Union not operate in their best interest.

Two sections of the country had two fundamentally different views. Neither one was wrong due to their divergent views (interpretation) of the matter. Many southerners referred to their state as their country. As a matter of fact, until the summer of 1861, West Pointers swore fealty to their state, not the country further complicating the issue. Hence they were both loyal but to different concepts.

I look at it simply. the south seceded which it had a right to do. the north wouldn't let it, hence war.

Bill



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Profile www Qoute
Keith_Hixson

Registered to :Aug 23, 2001
Messages :445
From :Ellensburg, Washington
Posted 10-10-2001 at 21:17
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You'd make a great politician.
I realize the loyality that both had. But my point is that honor and who is the most honorable, etc. is very personal interpretation. And I personally despise the glorification of some of the Southern Generals, even Lee and Jackson were humans and made mistakes. I think some Southerners worship Lee more than Jesus Christ, that is not reality. I have a friend who is member of the Southern Lee family, though not directly in Robert E.'s line she is a cousin. We both agree that some Southerners take it too far. Lee was a great man but he didn't walk on water.

Keith


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Profile Email Qoute
Tamaroa

Registered to :Aug 21, 2001
Messages :35
From :West Haverstraw, NY
Posted 11-10-2001 at 11:10
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is a story, probably apocrophyl (sp?), that you should get a kick out of then. Around the turn of the century it is said that a little boy came home from Sunday school and said to his mother 'I have a question, I am confused, is General Lee supposed to be in the Old Testament or the New".

Keith it should not surprise to you that Lee is deified in the South. There are a number of reasons but chief amongst them are the fact that he led the army that defended the southern homeland against the Yankee "Infidel" invaders. He fought nearly to the last man. He is not made of marble as Connolly so smugly puts. He was a human being but the south was laid waste to by a merciless enemy. They needed someone to look up to to help them recover. Lee did just that. Frankly, I believe his finest hours where from Appomattox forward. No, there is nothing wrong with the way most southerners look at Lee. Nor is there anything wrong with revisionist historians that try to humanize him. What I object to is those who continually refuse to look at the situation through his eyes and call him a traitor when in fact he was loyal to the state from which he came. In addition, as I said in the last post, his oath taken at West Point swore fealty to the state of Virginia NOT the United States. Even the government realized what a mistake they made since in 1861 they changed the oath to read that you swore fealty to the United States.

If a federal officer resigned his position and it was accepted then fought with the south, I see nothing amiss. However, if he just left and joined the Southern army, that is desertion and should have been dealt with accordingly.

This is how important the oath is. If you enlist in the armed forces, you take an oath. If you elect to re-enlist you have to take the oath again. To me that doesn't make much sense but that is how its done. The oath only covers the initial time for which you are enlisted. Any time beyond that requires a readministering of the oath because it was beyond your initial enlistment.

I was in the CG from 67-71, a friend of mine extended his enlistment for a year. After a couple of months it was realized that he had to take the oath again because his original 4 year term expired. Everybody got panicky until we read the personnel manual, the CO administered the oath and all was right in the world again.

By the way, my wife says you are wrong I would make a lousy politician!. She's right, I speak my mind, not what other people want to hear.

Bill



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Profile www Qoute
Keith_Hixson

Registered to :Aug 23, 2001
Messages :445
From :Ellensburg, Washington
Posted 11-10-2001 at 14:05
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When I was drafted back in 1967 and served with a few Southerners, I realized the Civil War wasn't over. My heritage goes back to Virginia. The Harrisons came out of Virginia. Right after the Revolution many moved West. Benjamin Harrison the President was an officer in the Northern Army (He's a distant cousin) yet many of his Cousins fought for the South. I just don't comprehend this strange devotion to the past. The War has been over 140+ years and many in the South are still fighting it. My great, great, Grandfather fought with the 10th Infantry Regiment of Illinois, attached to Grant in the West then transfered to Sherman for the march to the sea. You would think that after 140 years it would no longer be an issue. I do believe that it is less of an issue than it was 40 years ago. But, what does upset me: is they will vilify Grant and Sherman but not hold their own soldiers to the same level of scrutiny. I believe as I stated at the start of the post. The scourging the South actually in reality was a blessing in that it probably did shorten the War and Saved lives for both the South and the North. Just as the A-Bomb probabaly saved both Japanese and American lives. But since you can't prove it statistically the discussion will go on and on. But I believe the March and the devastation did save thousands of lives. Yet I can understand the anger it caused at the time. I'd be angry if someone destroyed my crops and industry. But sometimes when you live in the forrest you can't see the trees.

Keith


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Profile Email Qoute
chilidog

Registered to :Aug 22, 2001
Messages :100
From :Baton Rouge, LA USA
Posted 12-10-2001 at 12:05
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks Keith and Bill. It may have looked like you were just talking to each other, but you weren't. I thoroughly enjoyed the conversation. Being from Texas, I was raised in the southern "St. Lee" tradition. Both of you have expanded my horizions.

chilidog


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Profile Email Qoute
DMZ-LT

Registered to :Aug 27, 2001
Messages :335
From :ATLANTA
Posted 12-10-2001 at 15:10
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I second Chilidog. Thanks to both of you guys.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Profile Qoute
Keith_Hixson

Registered to :Aug 23, 2001
Messages :445
From :Ellensburg, Washington
Posted 12-10-2001 at 20:10
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks: Its good to explore your own thinking and Bill makes me think.

Keith



Tamaroa

Registered to :Aug 21, 2001
Messages :35
From :West Haverstraw, NY
Posted 13-10-2001 at 08:44
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I second that! And to you as well Keith, I always enjoy discussing views, some similiar and some divergent. It always expands the mind.

I ran across something the other day that I found quite interesting. Though not Civil War, the issue of oaths and loyalty are present. I watched a movie called One Man's Hero about the San Patricios, Irish who deserted just prior to and during the Mexican War and joined the Mexican Army. They deserted because they were denied the opportunity to practice their Catholic faith.

They enlisted to serve the country and protect the constitution with the promise of citizenship afterwards. If I serve a country that promises freedom of worship and that country, as personified by a prejudiced officer corps, does not allow me to worship, am I obligated to keep my end of the deal?

This story really struck me. I am in communication with the Mexican Embassy to try to get more information on it. I'm also getting a documentary film on these guys. I'm half Irish myself - - but not Catholic, however, I have a high degree of sympathy for them. Their executions to me are but another chapter in a long line of 19th century American abuses.

I love this country dearly for what it has become. But I look back at the Trail of Tears, the treatment of the San Patricios, the annexation of Texas, the Civil War & Slavery, the near extermination of the Indian culminating with the battle at Wounded Knee and the yellow journalism that caused the Spanish American War. I thank God that we have become more enlightened after a checkered past like that.

The ambiguity of the oath was one of the many reasons why there were no declared traitors after the war. the new oath was administered on Washington's Birthday in 1861. The southern cadets who refused to take it were expelled. After that there was no question.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Profile www Qoute
Keith_Hixson

Registered to :Aug 23, 2001
Messages :445
From :Ellensburg, Washington
Posted 13-10-2001 at 17:04
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In our western expansion, manifest destiny, I have always believed it would have happened, but the way in which it happened sure leaves a black mark on U.S. History. The history of the world has been one tribe or nation chasing out another weaker people, and will probably continue until the end of time. But, it certainly could have been humainly. Ancients and the Khans weren't very compassionate were they!!!

Keith


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Profile Email Qoute
desrvedaCMH

Registered to :Nov 22, 2001
Messages :5
From :right over here
Posted 25-12-2001 at 11:37
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(its really James W, calling in from my brothers house")

keith , Chili and all--good discussion--lemme catch up.


re: Sherman and his march. This was very gentle, comparatively to other scorched earth situations--ex:Barbarossa in WWII--but the union command was the first to realize that war comes from the people who support it and its not enough to beat armies on the ground militarily (as the thing in AFG shows)
What seems to be key in modern military thinking is destroying the enemies will and means to resist. Shermans march showed more than anything else that the Confed govt was powerless to defend its citizens outside of Virginia. There was a lot of malice and payback involved here--they trashed SC a good deal worse than GA for starting the whole thing in the first place.
grant and Sherman knew they were fighting rebellious citizens of their own country, not a seperate country and that they would have to live with these people afterwards--they could have done a lot worse.

I remember fighting the CW all over again in the Army and this is the exceptionto the old rule that the winner writes the history.
The South has definitely written their side and teach it (just like the Japanese) to their kids.

The CW was disastrous for the South from beginning to end. Their cause was negative from the start (disunion and slavery) but what was really bad is that most of the rebs didn't own slaves or property--as an anonymous reb said--"it was a rich mans war and a poor mans fight" the only people who stood to benefit in the South were wealthy--a very very few. the average people paid a LOT for it.
their leaders should have done a head count--the South started the war with 9 million, half of them slaves--the North had 23 mill, 90% of the railroad miles and 80% of the manufacturing capacity and virtual control of the seas--this could only add up to disaster for the South if the war went any length.

I think we do our ancestors a great disservice by judging them by todays standards. I'd rather try and understand their motivations.

we never came close to exterminating the Indians, there are more now than there were when we (Europeans) got here--reference this against how many jews are left in Poland or Lithuania where some REAL genocide took place. Please note that todays indians are a lot better off and their lifespans have been extended by decades. white people did a lot worse to the blacks for a lot longer (still doesnt make it right)
Theyre currently building a multimilliondollar "Nevada Style Fun!!" Casino, right around the corner from me to celebrate their age old tradition of electronic gambling--this is a tribe of about 20 with spanish names, they dress in ancient tribal 3 piece suits and drive ancient tribal BMWs. they traded their age old sacred resevation for some uptown property and it is their age old sacred property now. Anybody who think indians are all a bunch of matriarchal environmentalists should take a close look at this one. not much pemmican or dancing around the fire here. there's also a casino in Clear Lake that tribal factions often exchange gunfire on to gain control of. the police can do nothing about this because its ancient tribal land altho they get CA state welfare checks there.
hope this don't sound too cynical.


Merry christmas all!
James

Happy just to be alive














--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Profile www Qoute
Tamaroa

Registered to :Aug 21, 2001
Messages :35
From :West Haverstraw, NY
Posted 25-12-2001 at 13:44
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
James,
First of all Happy holidays to you and your family. We should take a moment to reflect how lucky we (as U.s. citizens ) are in the scheme of things.

I agree with almost everything you said except for the Indian issue. If you recall we signed a treaty with Indians, the Treaty of Greenville in 1783 which placed our boundaries on the crest of the Blue Ridge. In the 1880's one hundred years later we had herded the Indians on to reservations, broken every single peace treaty we ever made with them and relegated them to second class citizens. Please read Helen hunt Jackson's A CENTURY OF DISHONOR, By the way, I am not a bleeding heart liberal. I have a history degree specializing in US history.

Using the Guise of Manifest Destiny we rolled over everything that was in our way for the better part of a century. To what benefit to those who were in our way?

Indians as a whole have the highest suicide rate and alchohicism rate in the country. Legally they are nations within the boundaries of their reservations but if they choose to leave, they are subjected to a culture no where similiar to their own at all.

When I was going to school which seems like a millenium ago, there was the classic argument that we deserved the land because we could make better use out of it than the indians could, comparing their method of hunting to our method of farming. Hardly a reason for Washita Creek and Wounded Knee amongst other lesser known massacres such as Sand Creek, etc.

The issue about casinos is an interesting one. Perhaps it is because we taught them so well the value of money instead of honor and ethics. I'll bet if left to their own devices for the last hundred years, you would have seen a completely different course they would have taken.

I just hope that we have learned to be a more tolerant people than we were back then.

Regards,

Bill Doherty



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Profile www Qoute
exlrrp

Registered to :Aug 21, 2001
Messages :295
From :Richmond CA
Posted 27-12-2001 at 17:01
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I just hope that we have learned to be a more tolerant people than we were back then. "
Well, Bill, i AM a bleeding heart liberal and tolerance is what we preach, sorta. Also have to say that if there's any indians here at all its because of us "bleeding hearts" altho liberals share a lot of the blame for their cultural degradation--breaking up their families and sending their kids away to school.
But the notion that the Indians are seperate from our society, negates the tremendous contributions of those who are--I'm thinking of the Mohawks who work the high iron and the code talkers of WWII and others. I have some Indian(its what THEY call themselves)blood and so do millions of others and it is a great source of pride to most. There's currently 2.5 million NAs according to the latest census and another 1.5 mill who say theyre partially.
I don't see them apart from American culture and from my experience, neither do most of them.
The thing in CA is unusual about the gambling--basically they handed the tribes multi BILLION $$ opportunity and the tribes don't want to be chumps the 2d time around. But its hard to say youre seperate from our society while youre getting welfare checks as many of them are.
I'm sorta glad they let the Indians do the gambling but what it means is that they don't have to pass ANY building or planning codes--and its just turning into another huge gain for lawyers and Nevada gambling interests who the Indians pay to manage the casinos--with NO OVERSIGHT!!. the resolution setting this up was the highest financed resolution in CA history--we're talking multi, multi millions and that aint wampum!!
Meanwhile the tribes not in the loop are collecting welfare.
So that means that this new casion doesn't have to have an envoronmental impact report and will impac t our town very heavy, esp with traffic. The citizens here were never asked and this town is mostly minorities!! Black, Span and 57 different kinds of Oriental.
So its back down to who's gonna lay their trip on someone else--and the Indians get to use the US courts for this--if we handled this the Indian way, we'd just go kill a bunch of them and steal their stuff. I can give you LOTS of refernces on this!
Anyway, no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should

James
Happy just to be alive

undefined


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Profile Email Qoute
chilidog

Registered to :Aug 22, 2001
Messages :100
From :Baton Rouge, LA USA
Posted 06-01-2002 at 23:18
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
James,
I like reading your "left coast" philosophy. I'm not used to hearing these thoughts over here on the south coast. I would like to hear a few more.
"They trashed SC worse than GA for starting the thing in the first place?" Do you think it started that simple? You quoted one Confederate soldier about the war, here's another. When asked why he fought, he replied, "Cause ya'll down here." What was his philosophy?

Chilidog


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Profile Email Qoute
bits

Registered to :Aug 25, 2001
Messages :148
From :Ruston, LA
Posted 14-01-2002 at 14:41
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There's some good critiquing of the war itself here. But having been born, raised, and living out my retirement in the South, maybe I can add something.

What the South has always had shoved down it's throat was that the South lost the war. That the war was fought over slavery. That Lincoln was a Saint. That all Southerners were slaveholders. and ad infinitum. It seems to be entirely forgotten that Lincoln was in favor of either shipping Negroes back to Africa, or establishing a land of Negroes because, "the two races should not mix and it is clear that the white race is the superior race".

To a Southerner the war was fought over free trade rights and taxes.

In all of my life I have never heard a Southerner complain about losing the war. What I have heard was centered on revisionists history, and on the treatment the South got after the war.

I can personally trace my family back to the burning of Atlanta, where all records disappear. My grandfather told me he never knew a slaveholder.

The Emancipation Proclamation did not free any slaves in any of the four and one half Yankee states. (The one half being what is now West Virginia.) The Emancipation Proclamation didn't even free any slaves in any of the territories that had been overrun by Union forces. The only reason there even was an Emancipation Proclamation was that the Congress would not act to free Yankee slaves.

As a population control measure Northern forces separated families, and with empty promises of an eventual reunion, thousands, (females and children only) were transported to Yankee territory and never heard of again.

For twelve years Northern forces occupied the South. There were few elections, and anyone who had openly supported the Confederacy was ineligible to vote or hold any public office.

To get the 14th Amendment passed all Southerners were expelled from the Congress, and only readmitted after the Amendment was passed. (In the south it is still known as the "Unconstitutional Amendment".

When George Wallace took office as Govenor of Alabama he was finally able to get an excise tax removed from steel produced in Birmingham. The amount of the excise tax was the difference in shipping costs for Birmingham steel as opposed to Pittsburgh steel. The law subsidized Pittsburgh steel so that steel in Birmingham, (and all over the south), cost the customer the same, whether it came from Birmingham or Pittsburgh. The excise tax went into the US Treasury. The same US Treasury did not profit the same way from sales of Pittsburgh steel.

Comparison has been made to the Atomic Bomb and Sherman's march. To a Southerner there is nothing to compare. After WWII, Japan did not make reparation payments to the US. But after the Civil War, the south had to repay the Union for the cost of that war. Even as there was nothing to pay with.

Georgia fought the war and had a budget surplus at the time of Appomattox. Twelve years later, under reconstruction, Georgia could not pay it's governor's salary.

The reason the Union forces left the South was not that they had done their job. They were only pulled out when they were needed to fight the Indian Wars.

My wife is from Ipswich, Mass. in 1990 or 1991 her parents came to visit us. Her father asked me several times where were the "black quarters"? He asked me why black people walked right along side of white people, instead of getting out of the way of white people. I didn't understand the importance of the question until he asked it several times. Then he remarked that the blacks must be well off because they all wore real clothes, and not raggedy white cast offs.

He asked me where white people shopped? He asked why would white people let blacks drive their cars, and why didn't more white people drive their own cars? When I drove through the "black quarters" he was speechless. When I told him everybody shopped in the same stores he was speechless. When I told him those cars the blacks were driving were their own cars he was speechless.

When we went to dinner at the Bonanza Steak House and a black Professor acquaintance from Grambling State University sat his family down at the table next to ours, and then engaged me in converstaion, my wife's mother got up and left the table. The next day she asked me what I had drugged her daughter with to get her to marry into such a depraved society. And then they got in the car and left.

They were back within an hour. It seems he had a fender bender accident because he tried to bull his way ahead of a black driver. He actually could not understand why he got the traffic ticket.

Her mother said it was because of widespread southern prejudice against people with Northern accents.

And there are more and more and more reasons for a Southerner to still have a bad taste over the Civil War.

SF

H_________





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Profile Email Qoute
MORTARDUDE

Registered to :Aug 23, 2001
Messages :429
From :Bartlett, TN. C.S.A.
Posted 14-01-2002 at 19:40
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Great post bits !! I found an excellent book a few years ago called "War for What ?" by Francis W. Springer. It brings out many aspects of the socio-political situation that led to the Civil War that are rarely discussed.

Larry


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Profile Email www Qoute
Tamaroa

Registered to :Aug 21, 2001
Messages :35
From :West Haverstraw, NY
Posted 06-04-2002 at 22:02
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another great book is simply entitled "The Civil War" by James Street. It is quite an eye opener written by a southerner. You want to know why the war happened? Read the book.

Bill


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Profile www Qoute
Keith_Hixson

Registered to :Aug 23, 2001
Messages :445
From :Ellensburg, Washington
Posted 07-04-2002 at 00:24
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bits,

I read with your interest your post. I do believe that Western States such as Oregon though listed as a Northern State during the Civil War certainly had a different opinion about Blacks and Slavery than probably either the "North or the South"

Someone raised in Oregon would have never acted the way your in-laws did. From my contact with Southerners in the military I soon realized that people in Idaho and Montana think more like Southerners than those from the Northeast. The infamous trial of Randy Weaver in Boise for murdering an AFT agent was considered self-defense. The Federal Government has had a difficult time getting convictions in Idaho and Montana on many Federal charges. They just don't like Federal intervention in those states.

When I was in grade school we would go to the public swimming pools in Walla Walla about once a week to "cool off." Even in the early and mid-fifties there would be blacks and hispanics in the public pools using the same restrooms, etc. And no one thought anything about it. The bestman in my sister-in-law's wedding was a black man, my wife was the matron of honor. The attitude of your inlaws is just shocking to me. I had three black roommates in college (athletes dorm - I played basketball). It was no big deal and that was back in 1964. In the Northwest's larger cities there are black section, Chinatown, the Scandinavian section etc in the cities. In most cities this is starting to break down.

Interesting post Bits.


Keith

[Gimpy]

Also, to say that the destruction of crops, livestock and property (dwellings, buildings, etc.) did nothing but "speed up" the end to the war is absurd. Shermans' "March to the Sea" not only destoyed the area mentioned in the above posts, but also MOST of the population and economic centers of Northern & Central Georgia as well as South Carolina. By this time in the war, the Confederate troops were living off the "land" or the particular area they were involved in battle---NOT the commerce and farm land areas of Georgia and South Carolina! Yes. Atlanta WAS the transportation center and supply depot of considerable importance in the early years of the war, but the war had already begun to drain the valuable natural resources of the surrounding area long before "Shermans March". The actions by him and his Army (looters, rapist & muders as we call them down here in "Jawga")----were no more than "revengeful, payback" for the losses and humiliation meted out to the Northern troops in several of their earlier campaigns against the Confederate Armies.

His "March to the Sea" was directly responsible for more deaths (untold thousands) of civilian populace due to starvation, widespread disease and poverty for YEARS to come after his "Glorious" victory!

The subsequent years of so-called "reconstruction" by carpetbaggers, hoodlums, crooked Yankee-appointed politicians and occupying Army forces are what STILL outrages and disgusts most of the actual descendants of the Southern Heritage!

Most of the history "books" are no more than "story" books! If you want a TRUE picture or accounting of the "injustices" and outright "war crimes" commited against our descendants, try reading some of Shelby Footes cronology of this period in our history.

"FORGET HELL" !!

Not me, I've got ancestors buried all OVER the South whose deaths and lives of poverty and injustice were DIRECTLY related to "Shermans March".

Proud Member of "The Son's of the Confederacy",

AKA--General "Beauregard" Stonewall Johnson,

Utherwise knoed as "GIMPY"

[blues clues]

destruction South Carolina because the way he saw thing we started the war by being the first to leave the Union,and from what i've learned around here is some of good old shermans troops camped out on the land i own have found some of the stuff in the past.
razz